↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Systemic administration of local anesthetic agents to relieve neuropathic pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
204 Mendeley
Title
Systemic administration of local anesthetic agents to relieve neuropathic pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2005
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003345.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vidya Challapalli, Ivo W Tremont-Lukats, Ewan D McNicol, Joseph Lau, Daniel B Carr

Abstract

Lidocaine, mexiletine, tocainide, and flecainide are local anesthetics which give an analgesic effect when administered orally or parenterally. Early reports described the use of intravenous lidocaine or procaine to relieve cancer and postoperative pain (Keats 1951; Gilbert 1951; De Clive-Lowe 1958; Bartlett 1961). Interest reappeared decades later when patient series and clinical trials reported that parenteral lidocaine and its oral analogs tocainide, mexiletine, and flecainide relieved neuropathic pain in some patients (Boas 1982; Lindblom 1984; Petersen 1986; Dunlop 1988; Bach 1990; Awerbuch 1990). With the recent publication of clinical trials with high quality standards, we have reviewed the use of systemic lidocaine and its oral analogs in neuropathic pain to update our knowledge, to measure their benefit and harm, and to better define their role in therapy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 204 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 196 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 13%
Student > Postgraduate 23 11%
Student > Master 23 11%
Other 21 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 10%
Other 53 26%
Unknown 38 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 97 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 4%
Psychology 8 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Other 24 12%
Unknown 41 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 November 2015.
All research outputs
#2,238,311
of 17,355,315 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,938
of 11,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,997
of 222,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#120
of 246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,355,315 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 222,957 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 246 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.